Inspiration and Interpretation Part 24

[385] It becomes necessary to explain, that on the Sunday after the delivery of the foregoing Sermon, a Sermon was preached _directly contravening its teaching_. Next week, it became the present writer's duty to address the same auditory,--which will explain as much of what follows in the present Sermon, (including something at p. 79,) as may seem to require explanation. It was impossible to proceed with the argument, until what had been advanced of a directly opposite tendency had been thus disposed of.

[386] St. Luke xviii. 8.

[387] Davison's _Discourses on Prophecy_,--p. 7.

[388] _Ibid._

[389] Davison's _Discourses on Prophecy_,--p. 8.--The following pa.s.sage is from Bp. Horsley's _Primary Charge to the Clergy of Rochester_, (1796,):--"The question in this case is not abstract,--what Reason _may have_ the ability to do. The question is upon a matter of fact,--_what she did_. Were these things, in point of fact, man's own discovery?--The sacred history is explicit that they were not. And notwithstanding the many useful lessons of Morality we find in the writings of the heathen sages,--the many eloquent discourses upon providence, and the immortality of the soul,--the many subtile disquisitions upon the great questions of necessity and moral freedom, upon fate and chance,--I am persuaded, that had it not been for the early communications of the Creator with mankind, Man never would have raised the conceptions of his mind to the idea of a G.o.d; he never would have dreamt of the immaterial principle within himself; and he never would have formed any general notions of Right and Wrong in the abstract; he would have had no Religion, perhaps no Morality.... The prudent dispensers of the Word will resort to Revelation for his first principles, as well as for more mysterious truths. He will not trust to philosophy for any discoveries.

He will suffer philosophy to be nothing more than his a.s.sistant in the study of the inspired Word. She must herself be instructed by those lively oracles before she can be qualified to take part in the instruction of men. To lay the foundation of Revelation upon any previous discoveries of Reason, is in fact to make Reason the superior teacher. It is not improbable, that Idolatry itself had its first beginning in an early adoration of this phantom of Natural Religion,--the idol, in later ages, of impolitic metaphysical Divines."--_Charges_, pp. 50, 51.--Bp. Butler says the same thing, but more briefly, in his _a.n.a.logy_, P. II., c. ii.: also P. I., c. vi.

SERMON IV.[390]

THE PLENARY INSPIRATION OF EVERY PART OF THE BIBLE, VINDICATED AND EXPLAINED.--NATURE OF INSPIRATION.--THE TEXT OF SCRIPTURE.

ST. JOHN xvii. 17.

_Thy Word is Truth._

I thankfully avail myself of the opportunity which, unexpected and unsolicited, so soon presents itself, to proceed with the subject which was engaging our attention when I last occupied this place.

Let me remind you of the nature of the present inquiry, and of the progress which we have already made.

Taking Holy Scripture for our subject, and urging, as best we knew how, its paramount claims on the daily attention of the younger men,--who at present are our hope and ornament; to be hereafter, as we confidently believe, our very crown and joy;--even while we held in our hands that volume which our Fathers were content to call the volume of Inspiration, we were constrained to recollect that its claim to be inspired has of late years been repeatedly called in question. It has even become the fashion to cavil at almost everything which the Bible contains. We are grown so exceedingly wise, have made so many strange discoveries, and have become so clear-sighted, that the more advanced among us are kindly bent on disabusing the minds of their less gifted brethren of that most venerable delusion of all,--(for it is coeval with Christianity,)--that the Bible is in any special sense the Word of G.o.d. I do not say that Theologians talk thus. But pretenders to Natural Science, knowing nothing whatever of Divinity, and therefore intruding into a realm of which they do not understand so much as the language;--together with, (sad to relate!) men bearing a commission in the Church of CHRIST, (and who ought therefore to be building up, where they are seeking to destroy,)--are employing the powers which G.o.d has given them, in this direction. It becomes indispensable, in consequence, that we should say somewhat on behalf of those Oracles which have been so vigorously impugned; and it should not seem strange if we oppose to such destructive dogmatism, the most uncompromising severity of counter statement.

The objections which have been raised against the Bible, although they have been industriously gleaned from various quarters, will all be most effectually met, I am persuaded, by getting men to acquaint themselves with the contents of the deposit itself. And yet, inasmuch as it is the nature of doubts, when once injected into the mind, to fester and to spread; inasmuch also as the bold confidence of plausible a.s.sertion, especially when recommended by men of reputation, and set off with some ability and skill, is apt to impose on youth and inexperience;--we seem reduced to a kind of necessity, to examine; and, as far as the limits of a sermon will allow, to refute; the charges which have been so industriously brought forward against the Bible.

The favourite objections of the day come partly from without,--partly from within. The cla.s.sification is not exact, but it may serve to a.s.sist the memory. One cla.s.s of objections is, in a manner, destructive,--for it results in entire disbelief of the Bible:--the other cla.s.s, suggesting imperfections, results in a low and disparaging estimate of its contents. When exception is taken against certain portions of Holy Scripture, on the ground of discoveries in Physical Science,--of the dictates of the Moral Sense,--of the supremacy of mechanical Laws,--and the like,--we consider that the supposed difficulties come _from without_. As much as we care to say on this cla.s.s of objections has either been already offered, or must be reserved for a subsequent occasion[391].--When doubts are insinuated, arising out of the subject-matter of the Bible, we consider the difficulties to proceed _from within_. The apparent contradictions of the Evangelists, are of this nature. Supposed errors or misstatements, come under the same head.

Very imperfectly, yet sufficiently for our immediate purpose, we have touched upon both subjects. Those portions of the Old Testament which savour in the highest degree of the marvellous, must be reserved for separate consideration[392]. To-day I propose to speak of another kind of objection; but which arises, like the others, out of the subject-matter of the Bible. Moreover, it is the kind of difficulty which most readily presents itself to any who listened with unwilling ears to my last discourse. Some here present may remember my repeated and unequivocal a.s.sertion that Holy Scripture is inspired from the Alpha to the Omega of it;--not some parts more, some parts less, but all equally, and all to overflowing;--that we hold it to be, not generally inspired, but particularly; that we see not how with logical consistency we can avoid believing the words as well as the sentences of it; the syllables as well as the words; the letters as well as the syllables; every "jot" and every "t.i.ttle" of it, (to use our LORD'S expression,) to be divinely inspired:--and further, that until the contrary has been _proved_, we shall maintain that no misapprehension or misstatement, no error or blot of any kind, can possibly exist within its pages:--that we hold the Bible to be as much the Word of G.o.d, as if G.o.d spoke to us therein with human lips;--and that, as the very utterance of the HOLY GHOST, we cannot _but_ think that it must be absolute, faultless, unerring, supreme.

I. To this, it has been objected as follows:--

You cannot possibly mean what you say. You will not pretend to a.s.sert that the list of the Dukes of Edom[393], is as much inspired,--inspired in _the same sense_,--as the Gospel of St. John.--To which I make answer, that I believe one to be just as much inspired as the other: and before I leave off, I will endeavour to bring my hearers to the same opinion. In the meantime, it is only fair to the objector, to hear him out: to follow his guidance; and to see whither he would lead us. It will be quite competent for us _then_ to retrace our steps; to point out "a more excellent way;" and to entreat him, with all a brother's earnestness, to reconsider the matter, and to follow _us_.

The objection may, I believe, be fairly stated as follows.--It is unreasonable to consider any part of Holy Scripture inspired which the author was competent to write without the aid of Inspiration. Just as you would not multiply miracles needlessly, and ascribe to special Divine interference results which might be otherwise accounted for, so neither ought you to call in the aid of Inspiration where it may clearly be dispensed with. A genealogy,--a catalogue of names, whether of places or persons,--whatever may reasonably be suspected to have been an extract from public Archives;--nothing of this sort need you, nor indeed, properly speaking, _can_ you, call "inspired." More than that.

All mere narratives of ordinary transactions,--or indeed of transactions extraordinary;--whatever, in short, a writer, having first beheld it with his eyes, appears to have simply described with his pen, it is unreasonable to regard as the work of Inspiration. For it is plain to common sense,--(so at least I have heard it said,) that there is much, both in the Old and in the New Testament, the delivery of which required no other than the ordinary gifts of men:--actual observation, good memory, high intellect, clearness of statement, honesty of purpose. Look at the preface to St. Luke's Gospel. It seems only to convey that the author of it believed himself to be bringing out a superior edition of a narrative which had already been attempted by many. I would apply, (it is said,) to the whole of the Old Testament the same observations which I apply to the New. There are parts which evidently required nothing but opportunity of experience, or research, and the ordinary qualities of a trustworthy historian.--This then is the way the case is put. There is no intentional irreverence on the part of the objector: no conscious hostility to G.o.d'S Truth. Very much the reverse. But having once a.s.sumed that the catalogue of the Dukes of Edom is not to be regarded as an inspired doc.u.ment, he has logical consistency enough to perceive that he cannot exactly stop _there_. And so, he carries his speculations a little further. He tries to take (what he calls) a "common sense" view of the question. He says that he thinks it a dangerous proceeding on the part of the preacher to insist on the infallibility of Apostles and Evangelists. Meanwhile, I suspect that he is not by any means without a suspicion that he is on a platform beset with _far greater dangers_, himself. He has walked a little this way, and that way; and his "common sense" has shewn him that there is an ugly precipice on every side. Nay; he perceives that the ground trembles, and cracks, and shakes,--and even yawns beneath his feet.

For I request you to observe, that there is absolutely no middle state between Inspiration and non-inspiration. If a writing be inspired, it is Divine: if it be not inspired, it is human. It is absurd to shirk the alternative. _Some_ parts of the Bible, it is allowed, _are_ inspired; other parts, it is contended, are _not_. Let it be conceded then, for the moment, that the catalogue of the Dukes of Edom is _not_ an inspired writing; and let it be ejected from the Bible accordingly. We must by strict parity of reasoning, eject the xth chapter of Genesis, which enumerates the descendants of j.a.pheth, of Ham, and of Shem, with the countries which they severally occupied,--that truly venerable record and outline of the primaeval settlement of the nations! The ten Patriarchs before, and the ten after Noah: the many enumerations contained in the Book of Numbers: much of the two Books of Chronicles: together with the Genealogies of our SAVIOUR as given by St. Matthew and St. Luke.

It is clear that the history of the Flood,--very much of it at least,--is of the same nature: a kind of calendar as it were, and record of dates.

But we may go on faster, and use the knife far more freely. Every thing in the Pentateuch of which Moses had been an eye or ear-witness, and which he set down from his own personal knowledge, may be eliminated from the Bible, as not inspired. According to the principle already enunciated by yourself, I call upon you to excise from the Book of G.o.d'S Law, Exodus, and Leviticus, and Numbers, and Deuteronomy: those pa.s.sages only excepted which are prophetical,--as the x.x.xiiird of Deuteronomy.

Joshua must go of course: for if the son of Nun did not write the Book which goes under his name,--(as the wise men in Germany say, or used to say, he did not[394],)--of course the narrative is not authentic; and if he _did_, _you_ say that it ought not to be regarded as inspired. Judges and Ruth cannot hope to stand; for they are mere stories,--narratives of events which any contemporary author who enjoyed "actual observation, good memory, high intellect, clearness of statement, and honesty of purpose," was abundantly qualified--(according to _your_ view of the matter)--to commit to writing. The Books of Samuel and of Kings cannot be claimed as the work of Inspiration, of course. Chronicles we have got rid of already. No imaginable plea can be invented for the Books of Ezra, of Nehemiah, and of Esther; those writings having evidently required nothing (to use your own phrase) but "opportunity of experience or research, and the ordinary qualities of a trustworthy historian." The prophetical books you spare; natural piety suggesting that since "Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of G.o.d spake as they were moved by the HOLY GHOST[395];"--the writings of Isaiah and the rest, must be retained as inspired. We expunge those portions only which are simply historical and moral; since to these, by the hypothesis, the spirit of Inspiration cannot be thought to have extended.

We come now to the New Testament; and two of the Gospels are found to be mutilated already, by the elimination of one chapter of St. Matthew and one of St. Luke. But on the principle that personal observation, a good memory, honesty of purpose, and so forth, are the only requirements necessary, we may proceed to carry forward the work of excision with spirit, so that we be but careful to use discernment. For example, we may begin with the Call of St. Matthew, and the Feast which he made to our LORD in his own house. _Who_ so competent to relate this, as the Evangelist himself? Whenever, in short, the Twelve were present, St.

Matthew, (as one of the Twelve,) may be a.s.sumed to have written from personal observation; and _that_ portion of his narrative is to be rejected accordingly as uninspired.

It is painful to antic.i.p.ate what will be the fate of St. John's Gospel, on this principle,--together with most of the Divine Discourses therein recorded. Not, to be sure, that we shall lose the conversation with Nicodemus, nor that with the woman of Samaria; because St. John was not present when either of those conversations took place: but all, from the xivth to the xviith chapter inclusive; as well as the discourse in the vith chapter, must of course be dismissed. The matter of these discourses, it will be urged,--(with more of logical consistency, alas!

than of essential truth,)--might have been faithfully handed down by St.

John without any extraordinary gift. He was bound to our LORD by more than ordinary affection. He was ever nearest to Him. Is it not conceivable, (we are asked,) that these two causes, aided by a retentive memory, would at least _enable_ him to give us the record which he has given?

Quite superfluous must it be to state that the Acts of the Apostles, under the expurgatory process which now engages our attention, will cease to be regarded as an inspired Book; and therefore must be at once disconnected from the confessedly inspired portions of Holy Scripture.--St. Paul's Epistles, you say, on the contrary, are probably inspired, and therefore are probably to be spared.... And I really think we need go no further. If your own handling of Holy Scripture,--your own method, by yourself applied,--be not a _reductio ad absurdum_, I know of nothing in the world which is.... Look only at that handful of mutilated pages in the hands of one who is supposed to be the impersonation of "common sense;" turn the tattered and mangled leaves over and over, which _you_ are pleased to call the Volume of Inspiration; and get all the comfort and help out of it you can. But be not surprised to hear that you are exposing yourself to the ridicule of the sane part of Mankind,--even while haply you are acting a part which makes the Angels weep.... How much of the Bible will remain, when _Science_, (Physical, Moral, Historical,) has further done _her_ work, I forbear now to inquire: but I shrewdly suspect that she will leave you very little beyond the back and the covers.

Let us not be told, (as we doubtless shall,) that the human parts of Scripture need not be _ejected_ from the Canon because they are human: that they may be allowed to stand with the rest, although uninspired; and the like. About this, _we_ at least are competent judges. We are now bent on discovering how much of Holy Scripture is _the Word of G.o.d_; and we refuse, for the moment, to regard as such, and to retain, a single pa.s.sage which, being (as you say) uninspired, is simply _the word of Man_.

II. Let me now be permitted to lay before you a somewhat different view of the office of Inspiration. Since the illumination of Science, falsely so called, and the process of Common Sense, would seem to have resulted in the extinction of the deposit, I ask your patience while I try to shew, that common sense, informed by a somewhat loftier Theological Instinct, may give such an account of the matter as will enable us to preserve every word of the deposit entire.

You call my attention to the catalogue of the Dukes of Edom, and tell me that it required no supernatural aid to enable Moses to write it. How, may I ask, do you ascertain that fact? No specimens of the doc.u.mentary evidence of the land of Seir in the days of Moses, are known now to exist on the earth's surface. You therefore know absolutely nothing whatever about the matter of which you speak so confidently.

But, that we may grapple with the question fairly, let us come down from an age concerning which neither of us knows anything beyond what the Bible teaches, to a period with which all are familiar, and to doc.u.ments of which we know at least a little. It will suit your purpose far better that you should instance the two Genealogies of our LORD,--of which you also say that it is impossible to maintain that they exhibit the work of Inspiration in the same sense as when some lofty statement of Christian doctrine comes before us. Indeed, you deny that they are inspired at all. I, on my side, am willing to admit that it is quite possible,--even probable,--that the first and the third Evangelist had access to extant doc.u.ments of which they respectively availed themselves, when they recorded our LORD'S descent.

But, do you not perceive that the great underlying fallacy in all you have been saying, is your own wholly gratuitous a.s.sumption that you are a competent judge of what _did_,--what did _not_,--require supernatural aid to deliver? that whatever _seems_ as if it might have been written without Inspiration, _was_ therefore written without it?--I see so many practical inconveniences, or rather I see such glaring absurdity, resulting from the supposition that Inspiration goes and comes before an authentic doc.u.ment, that I am constrained to think that you are altogether mistaken in the office which you a.s.sign to Inspiration,--in the kind of notion which you seem to entertain concerning its nature.

An Evangelist, if you please, is inspired. It becomes necessary to introduce a genealogy. Following the Divine guidance, (the nature of which, neither you nor I know anything at all about,) he applies in a certain quarter, and obtains access to a certain doc.u.ment. Or he repairs to a well-known repository of public archives, and out of the whole collection he is guided to make choice of one particular writing. He proceeds to transcribe it,--omitting names (dropping three generations for instance,)--or inserting names (the second Cainan for example,)--or, if you please, neither omitting nor inserting anything. The doc.u.ment, (suppose,) requires no correction whatever.--Well but, this man was inspired a moment ago, in what he was writing; and no reason has been shewn why he should not be inspired still. He has adopted a doc.u.ment, by incorporating it into his narrative. By transcribing it, he has made it his own. I am at a loss to see that its claim to be an inspired writing, from that moment forward, is in any respect inferior to the rest of the narrative in which it stands.

You are requested to remember that when we call the Bible an inspired book, we mean nothing more than that the words of it are the very utterance of the HOLY SPIRIT;--that the Book is as much the Word of G.o.d as if high Heaven were open, and we heard G.o.d speaking to us with human voice. All I am contending for _now_, is, that this is at least as true of one part of the Gospel as of another: that if it be true of anything in the Gospel, it is at least _as_ true of the Genealogy of CHRIST. The _subject-matter_ indeed is different; but it is a mere confusion of thought to infer therefrom a different degree of _Inspiration_. Let me try and make this plainer by a few familiar ill.u.s.trations.

1. When the Sovereign reads a speech from the Throne, does she speak the words of it in any _different sense_ from the words of a speech which she has herself composed?--Nay, are words of invest.i.ture, mere words of form and state, in any _less degree spoken_, than words of confidence, and private friendship?

2. Again. The substance of paper and the substance of gold, are widely different. And yet, when paper has been subjected to a certain process, and stamped with a certain impress, there is practically _no difference whatever_ between the value of what was, a moment ago, absolutely worthless, and an ingot of the purest gold.

3. Consider how the case stands with a merely human author. An historian has occasion to introduce into his narrative the descent of a House, or the preamble of an Act, or any other lifeless thing. Does his responsibility cease when he comes to it, and recommence immediately afterwards? Is he not responsible just to the same extent for _that_, as for every other part of his story?

That he did not _compose it himself_, is certain: but _neither did he compose the sayings which he has recorded of great men_.--True also is it that the edification to be derived from the pedigree is not so great,--certainly, not so obvious,--as from certain of the events which he describes. But it is nevertheless henceforth an integral part of his history. He sought for it,--and he found it: he weighed it,--and he approved of it: he transcribed it,--and he interwove it into his narrative. In a word, he adopted; and by adopting, he _made it his own_.

Henceforth, it will be quoted as authentic, because it is found to have satisfied _him_.

The utmost praise which can be accorded to any creature is, that it thoroughly fulfils the office whereunto G.o.d sends it. A genealogy is not intended to make men wise unto Salvation: the threats and promises of G.o.d'S Law are not intended to acquaint men with the descent of David's Son. But because _their offices_ are different, it does not follow that _their origin_ shall not he the same! Is a shoe-latchet in any sense less an article manufactured by Man, than a watch? Is the Archangel Michael, burning with glory, and intent on some celestial enterprise, with twelve legions of glittering seraphs in his train;--is such a host as _that_, one atom more a creation of the ALMIGHTY than the handful of yellow leaves which flutter unheeded on the blast?

None of these figures present a strict parallel; and yet, successively, they seem to set forth different aspects of the same case, with sufficient vividness and truth.... So bent am I on conveying to your minds the strong sense of certainty, the clear definite view, which I cherish for myself on this subject, that I take leave to add yet another ill.u.s.tration.

4. If I commission a Servant to deliver a message,--is not the message which he delivers _mine_? If I give him words to deliver,--are not _the words_ which he delivers _mine_? So obvious a proposition is no matter of opinion. You _cannot_ deny it. Nor,--(to apply the ill.u.s.tration to the matter in hand,)--nor _do_ you deny it, probably, so far as _Prophecy_, (in the popular sense of the term,) is concerned: but you begin to doubt, it seems, when any other function of the prophetic office is in question. "Any other function," I say; for, (as all men ought to be aware,) a prophet,--(_nave_ in Hebrew, p??f?t?? in Greek,)--does not, by any means, of necessity imply one who describes _future_ events. ??? does not denote futurity of time, but vicariousness of office. The p??-f?t?? is one who speaketh p??, "on behalf of," "in the person of," G.o.d; whether declaring things past,--(as when Moses describes the Creation of the World, the Fall of Man, the Patriarchal Age): things present,--(as when St. Luke, "having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first," writes of them "in order"): things future,--(as when David, and Isaiah, and the rest of the goodly fellowship, "testified beforehand the sufferings of CHRIST, and the glory that should follow[396].") This is no arbitrary statement, but a well-known fact, which modern unbelievers and ancient heathen writers have declared with sufficient plainness[397]. So long then as the message which the Servant delivers is prophetic, you do not object to the notion that it is G.o.d'S message; nay, that the words spoken are G.o.d'S words. You begin to doubt, it seems, when a collection of genealogies, (as the two Books of Chronicles;) or when a story like that contained in the Book of Esther is concerned.

But what is this but very trifling, and mere childishness? The message _may_ be mine, it seems, if it be of a lofty character: it may _not_ be mine if it be of a homely, ordinary kind!--I send a message by my Servant, and he delivers it faithfully: but whether it _is_ to be called my message, or is _not_ to be called my message, is to depend entirely on the subject-matter!... Thus, if a King, refusing to appear in person, should issue a reprieve to prisoners under sentence of Death, a proclamation of Peace or of War, an address to the representatives of the const.i.tution, (Clergy, Lords, and Commons,) in parliament a.s.sembled,--the message would be _his_. But if, on the contrary, he were only to send a few homely words, the expression of some wish or intention which has nothing that seems particularly royal in it,--then, the message would _cease_ to be his!... I protest that as I am unable to see the reasonableness of such a method of regarding things human, so am I at a loss to understand why men should so regard things Divine.

5. This entire matter may be usefully ill.u.s.trated by having recourse to an a.n.a.logy which was established on a former occasion: namely, the a.n.a.logy between the _Written_ and the _Incarnate_ Word[398]. That our LORD JESUS CHRIST is at once very G.o.d and very Man, we all fully admit; although _the manner_ of the union of G.o.dHEAD and Manhood in His one Person we confess ourselves quite unable to comprehend. Even so, that there is a human as well as a Divine element in Holy Scripture,--_who_ so blind as to overlook? _who_ so weak as to deny? And yet, to dissect out that human element,--_who_ (but a fool) so rash as to attempt?... To apply this to the matter before us. _Certain parts_ of Holy Scripture you think, (for reasons to yourself best known,) are not to be looked upon as inspired in the same sense as the rest of the volume. Just as reasonably might you try to persuade me that our SAVIOUR was not _in the same sense_ our SAVIOUR when He ate and drank at the Pharisees' board, as when He cast out devils and raised the dead. Was He not equally the Incarnate WORD at every stage of His earthly career; from the time that He was laid in the manger, until the instant when He expired upon the Cross? The degradation which He endured in Pilate's judgment-hall did not affect the reality of the great truth that the G.o.dHEAD was indissolubly joined to the Manhood in His Person. He was not less very G.o.d as well as very Man when some one spat upon Him, than at His Transfiguration and at His Ascension into Heaven!... Why then should the mean aspect and lowly office of certain parts of Scripture,--(genealogical details and the narrative of what we think ordinary occurrences,)--be supposed to disent.i.tle those parts to the praise of being _as fully inspired as any thing in the whole compa.s.s of the Bible?_

I may remind you, in pa.s.sing, that the narrative of Scripture, even in its humblest, and (to all appearance) most human parts, has a perpetual note of Divinity set upon it. The historical portions are throughout interspersed with indications that the writer is beholding the transactions which he records, from a Divine, (not a human,) point of view. G.o.d is invariably, (sooner or later,) mentioned as the Agent; or there is some reference made to G.o.d; or to G.o.d'S Word. As Butler expresses it,--"The general design of Scripture ... may be said to be, to give us an account of the world, in this one single view,--_as G.o.d'S world_: by which it appears essentially distinguished from all other books, so far as I have found, except such as are copied from it[399]."

I entreat you therefore to disabuse your minds of the very weak,--aye and very fatal,--notion that the catalogue of the Dukes of Edom is _less_, or _in any different sense_, inspired, from the rest of the narrative in which it stands. We may not multiply miracles needlessly, it is true; but neither may we deny the miraculous character of certain transactions, (as the two Draughts of Fishes,) which, apart from the recorded attendant circ.u.mstances, would not have been deemed miraculous.--In truth, however, Holy Scripture, in one sense, is a miracle from end to end; and if we may not multiply miracles needlessly, certainly we are not at liberty to dismiss the recorded details of a single miracle, as of no account.--Consider also, I entreat you, whether it is credible that Inspiration should be a thing of such a nature, that it comes and goes,--is here and is gone,--once and again in the course of a single page. What? does it vanish, like lightning, when the Evangelist's pen has to record the t.i.tle on the Cross,--to re-appear the instant afterwards?

This allusion to the t.i.tle on the Cross of our Blessed LORD, variously given by each of the four Evangelists, reminds me of the singular perversity of mankind when this subject of Inspiration is being treated of; and to this, I now particularly desire to invite your attention.--When a doc.u.ment is simply transcribed by the Evangelist, or may be _supposed_ to have been merely transferred to his pages, men a.s.sert that so purely mechanical an act precludes the notion that Inspiration has had any share in the transaction. Be it so!--Behold now, four inspired writers exhibiting the brief t.i.tle on our LORD'S Cross with considerable verbal diversity; and you will hear the same critics open-mouthed against the Evangelists' claim to Inspiration, for exactly the opposite reason!--It is just so of places quoted from the Old Testament in the New. Faithful transcription, (we are told,) is in the power of all. What note of an inspired author have we here? But the places are _not_ faithfully transcribed. On the contrary. They exhibit every possible degree of deflection from the original standard. And lo, the Apostles of CHRIST are thought not to have quite understood Greek,--to have mistaken the sense of the Hebrew,--and to have been the victims of a most capricious memory.--For the last time. Certain narrative portions of Holy Scripture, (it is a.s.sumed,) could have been written without the aid of Inspiration; and therefore it is unphilosophical, (we are told,) to a.s.sign to them a divine original. But the marvellous parts of Holy Scripture, which seem to claim a loftier original than man's unaided wit,--_these_ you view with suspicion, or you deny!... "Whereunto shall I liken the men of this generation?"